Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mother Box

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This one is in between keep and redirect. I am closing as keep (as opposed to delete), but a merge can be discussed on the talkpage. There are several issues with the article, such as unreferenced sections. Tone 16:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Box

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. I don't see anything that goes beyond a pure WP:PLOT-level summary. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - This is a complicated MacGuffin that's been significant to several characters/storylines across multiple media, so having a brief explanation of it on a list somewhere would be helpful. I think merging a minimum of detail to List of fictional computers would be the best option. List of objects in the DC Universe is another option, but that list is horrid. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They occur in so many contexts that it's best to keep the page as it is. There's coverage in sources such as the Jack Kirby Collector and CBR. WP:ATD and WP:SPLIT apply. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. Trivial news articles do not qualify as "non-trivial coverage." The article is lacking in real world context. TTN (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete per TTN. The article is lacking in real world context to meet the WP:NOT#PLOT, and needs more than trivial coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The CBR source is significant coverage in a reliable source. I found another reliable source giving significant coverage to it at https://screenrant.com/justice-league-mother-boxes-explained/ as well as at https://collider.com/justice-league-mother-boxes-explained/#steppenwolf Dream Focus 03:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note that those two sources seem to overlap significantly, I am not sure which one is original (based on dates, Collider's?), but the other one likely plagiarized from the second. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage exists, and this topic is valuable to both the topic of comics and Jack Kirby's highly influential Fourth World. Dark knight 2149 05:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added three sources in a Reception section from the New York Review of Books, Den of Geek and Entertainment Weekly. As others have said, the Mother Box is an important and well-recognized element of Kirby's Fourth World stories. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the sources are enough to pass GNG. An important element of the Fourth World mythos. Rhino131 (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Let this page stay. It is a major element in the comic books talking about the New Gods. Plus, @Andrew Davidson:, @Dream Focus:, @Darkknight2149:, @Toughpigs:, and @Rhino131: are right about their claims. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:SIGCOV exists - Toughpigs has added more reliable sources: New York Review of Books, Den of Geek and Entertainment Weekly Wm335td (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources don't discuss this besides summarizing the plot... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge per User:Piotrus as there are no reliable sources to offer real world impact. The reception section isn't a reception section, and using that heading is misleading. It's currently a rehash of WP:PLOT details, which is something Wikipedia articles are not. There are only passion mentions of this in reliable sources, which isn't enough to be WP:NOTABLE. Jontesta (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jontesta, Good point about the misleading reception section. Would you care to rename it in the article? If I did so some people could argue I am trying to 'damage' the article I am trying to delete... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "Interpretation," if that helps. It's three writers interpreting what the Mother Box symbolizes. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is definitely notable. Improve the article rather than delete. Enjoyer of World (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete per TTN. Coverage of this fictional device is largely trivial and it lacks sufficient significant mentions. A number of trivial mentions does not a standalone article make. Anyone who believes this is notable may be confusing Wikipedia with FANDOM._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also found the journal article "How Can I Refuse You, Mother Box?!" Abjection and Objectification of Motherhood in Jack Kirby's Fourth World. For those who may not have access, the article contains analysis of the Mother Box as a symbol of motherhood in Kirby's fourth would, and is not plot based. It appears to be from an academic journal published by the University of Florida, so I would say it counts towards GNG. Rhino131 (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Good find. The journal is reliable, but as those things go, it is very low tier (in Wikipedia terms, it is non-notable, and in professional scholarly terms, it is not a journal in which you publish to advance your career, as it has very low impact). The author is, unspripsingly, a PhD candidate: [1]. That said, I don't disagree that the coverage of the topic in this source is in-depth, and that it is reliable for such an uncontroversial topic. If we can find one more source which discuss the concept of a mother box in such a fashion (in-depth analysis), I'd consider withdrawing my nom. As it is, I think we could merge the non-plot 'Interpretation' written by User:Toughpigs to Kirby's article, and expand it with the source you found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect insufficient coverage in independent, third party reliable sources—which discuss more than just the plot—to warrant a standalone article. ——Serial 17:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.